DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged.
After careful review, Examiner is withdrawing the restriction requirement.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4 – 6, 9, 11 – 13 and 17 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Critsinelis et al. (WO2021/161025) in view of Hyland (2021/0115780).
As to claim 1, Critsinelis et al. (hereinafter Critsinelis) discloses a device for monitoring strain of an elongate underwater member including a clamping inspection device (10, monitoring device, Page 5, line 2) for measuring a characteristic of a wall of a pipe (12, Page 2, lines 26 – 28, Page 5, line 2), comprising: a first jaw (28, page 6, line 8) that engages a first side of the pipe (12); a second jaw (30, page 6, line 9) that engages a second side of the pipe (12 ); a securing means (64, 66, 68, Page 6, lines 23 - 26) for securing the first jaw (28) and the second jaw (30) to the pipe (12); a sensor (90, Fig. 1, Page 7, lines 19 - 20) coupled to at least one of the first jaw (28) and the second jaw (30), the sensor comprising a magnetometer (90, Page 8, lines 11 - 12) that detects magnetic field measurements associated with the characteristic of the wall of the pipe (Page 12, line 21), (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
729
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Critsinelis fails to disclose a controller coupled to the clamping inspection device, the controller comprising a power source and data storage device, wherein the data storage device receives the magnetic field measurements from the sensor via a communication link. Hyland discloses a subsea structure monitoring system wherein a controller (30, Fig. 1, [0020]-[0021]) coupled to the clamping inspection device, the controller comprising a power source (38) and data storage device [0020], wherein the data storage device receives the magnetic field measurements from the sensor via a communication link (30, 32, [0020]) (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
686
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Critsinelis in view of the teachings of Hyland wherein a controller coupled to the clamping inspection device, the controller comprising a power source and data storage device, wherein the data storage device receives the magnetic field measurements from the sensor via a communication link would more easily calculate and communicate data by the device.
As to claim 4, Critsinelis fails to disclose that the controller further comprises a wireless communication link that transmits the magnetic field measurements to a remote data collection device, wherein the wireless communication link communicates the magnetic field measurements by one of optical signals, radio signals, acoustic signals, and magnetic pulse signals. Hyland discloses a subsea structure monitoring system wherein a wireless communication link (30, 32), [0020] that transmits the magnetic field measurements to a remote data collection device (14, Fig. 1), [0018], [0020], wherein the wireless communication link communicates the magnetic field measurements by one of optical signals, radio signals (30, 32), acoustic signals, and magnetic pulse signals. [0020] (30, 30B, [0020-[0021]]), (30, 32, 14, 15, [0018], [0020]) (Fig. 1). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Critsinelis in view of the teachings of Hyland wherein a wireless communication link that transmits the magnetic field measurements to a remote data collection device, wherein the wireless communication link communicates the magnetic field measurements by one of optical signals, radio signals, acoustic signals, and magnetic pulse signals would more easily calculate and communicate data by the device.
As to claim 5, Critsinelis fails to disclose that the remote collection device is onboard one of: a remotely operated vehicle, an autonomous underwater vehicle, equipment located undersea, and a platform at the water's surface. Hyland discloses a subsea structure monitoring system wherein the remote collection device is onboard one of: a remotely operated vehicle, an autonomous underwater vehicle, equipment located undersea, and a platform at the water's surface. [0020] (30, 30B, [0020]-[0021]), (30, 32, 14, 15, [0018], [0020]) (Fig. 1). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Critsinelis in view of the teachings of Hyland wherein the remote collection device is onboard one of: a remotely operated vehicle, an autonomous underwater vehicle, equipment located undersea, and a platform at the water's surface would more easily calculate and communicate data by the device.
As to claim 6, Critsinelis fails to explicitly disclose that the controller comprises a processor that analyzes the magnetic field measurements and determines a wall thickness indicator. Hyland discloses a subsea structure monitoring system wherein the controller comprises a processor that analyzes the magnetic field measurements and determines a wall thickness indicator ((30, 34, 36), Fig. 2, [0020]), (15, 30, [0020]), (30, 30B, [0020-[0021]]) , (30, 32, 14, 15, [0018], [0020]) (Fig. 1). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Critsinelis in view of the teachings of Hyland wherein including a processor that analyzes the magnetic field measurements and determines a wall thickness indicator would more easily calculate and communicate data by the device.
As to claim 9, Critsinelis discloses an inspection device (10, monitoring device, Page 5, line 2) for measuring a characteristic of a wall of a pipe (12, Page 2, lines 26 - 28), comprising: installing the pipe inspection device (10) at a first location on the pipe (12), (Fig. 2 - 4); detecting, by a magnetometer (90), magnetic field measurements associated with the characteristic of the wall of the pipe (12, Page 8, lines 11 - 12), the magnetometer (90) located within a sensor of the pipe inspection device (12). Critsinelis fails to explicitly disclose that transmitting, by a controller via a wireless communication link, the magnetic field measurements to a remote data collection device. Hyland discloses a subsea structure monitoring system wherein transmitting, by a controller via a wireless communication link, the magnetic field measurements to a remote data collection device (30, 30B, [0020-[0021]]), (30, 32, 14, 15, [0018], [0020]) (Fig. 1). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Critsinelis in view of the teachings of Hyland that transmitting, by a controller via a wireless communication link, the magnetic field measurements to a remote data collection device would more easily calculate and communicate data by the device.
As to claim 11, Critsinelis fails to disclose that the wireless communication link transmits the magnetic field measurements by one of optical signals, radio signals, acoustic signals, and magnetic pulse signals. Hyland discloses a subsea structure monitoring system wherein the wireless communication link transmits the magnetic field measurements by one of optical signals, radio signals (30, 32), acoustic signals, and magnetic pulse signals [0020] (30, 30B, [0020-[0021]]), (30, 32, 14, 15, [0018], [0020]) (Fig. 1). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Critsinelis in view of the teachings of Hyland wherein the wireless communication link transmits the magnetic field measurements by one of optical signals, radio signals, acoustic signals, and magnetic pulse signals would more easily calculate and communicate data by the device.
As to claim 12, Critsinelis fails to disclose that the remote data collection device is onboard one of: a remotely operated vehicle, an autonomous underwater vehicle, equipment located undersea, and a platform at the water's surface. Hyland discloses a subsea structure monitoring system wherein the remote data collection device is onboard one of: a remotely operated vehicle, an autonomous underwater vehicle, equipment located undersea, and a platform at the water's surface. [0020] (30, 30B, [0020]-[0021]), (30, 32, 14, 15, [0018], [0020]) (Fig. 1). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Critsinelis in view of the teachings of Hyland wherein the remote data collection device is onboard one of: a remotely operated vehicle, an autonomous underwater vehicle, equipment located undersea, and a platform at the water's surface would more easily calculate and communicate data by the device.
As to claim 13, Critsinelis fails to explicitly disclose that calculating, by a processor, a wall thickness indicator from the magnetic field measurements; and transmitting, by the controller, the wall thickness indicator from the data storage device to the remote data collection device. Hyland discloses a subsea structure monitoring system wherein calculating, by a processor (34, Fig. 2, [0020]), a wall thickness indicator from the magnetic field measurements (30, 34, 36); and transmitting, by the controller, the wall thickness indicator from the data storage device to the remote data collection device (15, 30, [0020]), (30, 30B, [0020-[0021]]) , (30, 32, 14, 15, [0018], [0020]) (Fig. 1). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Critsinelis in view of the teachings of Hyland that calculating, by a processor, a wall thickness indicator from the magnetic field measurements; and transmitting, by the controller, the wall thickness indicator from the data storage device to the remote data collection device would more easily calculate and communicate data by the device.
As to claim 17, Critsinelis discloses an inspection device (10, monitoring device, Page 5, line 2) for measuring a characteristic of a wall of a pipe (12, Page 2, lines 26 - 28), the inspection device comprising: a fastener (68, Page 6, line 28) that secures the inspection device to the pipe; a sensor (90, Page 7, lines 19 - 20) comprising a magnetometer that detects magnetic field measurements associated with the characteristic of the wall of the pipe (12, Page 8, lines 11 - 12); and a controller comprising a power source (Page 7, lines 20 - 21) and a data storage device (Page 2, line 21), (Fig. 1, 2, 3). Critsinelis fails to explicitly disclose that the data storage device receives the magnetic field measurements from the sensor via a communication link. Hyland discloses a subsea structure monitoring system wherein that the data storage device (30, 30B, [0020-[0021]]) receives the magnetic field measurements from the sensor via a communication link (30, 32, 14, 15, [0018], [0020]) (Fig. 1). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Critsinelis in view of the teachings of Hyland that the data storage device receives the magnetic field measurements from the sensor via a communication link would more easily calculate and communicate data by the device.
As to claim 18, Critsinelis discloses that the fastener is one of: straps that wrap around the pipe, a magnet, an adhesive, or a clamp that engages opposing sides of the pipe (Fig. 1, clamping screw 68, clamping bars 64, 66, first jaw assembly 28, second jaw assembly 30; Page 6, lines 8, 9, 23 and 26).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 2, the prior art fails to disclose that the sensor further comprises a coil that receives a power signal from the power source and generates an applied magnetic field. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
As to claim 3, the prior art fails to disclose that the magnetic field measurements are response magnetic field measurements generated in response to the applied magnetic field. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
As to claim 7, the prior art fails to disclose that the processor calibrates the clamping inspection device using at least one of environmental magnetic field measurements, a geometry of the pipe, and a magnetic permeability of material of the pipe.
As to claim 8, the prior art fails to disclose that the magnetic field measurements associated with the characteristic of the wall of the pipe are compared to prior magnetic field measurements to determine a change in the characteristic of the wall of the pipe. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
As to claim 10, the prior art fails to disclose that the magnetic field measurements are response magnetic field measurements generated in response to an applied magnetic field, the applied magnetic field generated by a coil of the sensor that receives a power signal from a power source of the controller. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
As to claim 14, the prior art fails to disclose calibrating the pipe inspection device using at least one of environmental magnetic field measurements, a geometry of the pipe, and a magnetic permeability of material of the pipe. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
As to claim 15, the prior art fails to disclose the magnetic field measurements associated with the characteristic of the wall of the pipe are compared to prior magnetic field measurements to determine a change in the characteristic of the wall of the pipe. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
As to claim 16, the prior art fails to disclose disengaging, using a remotely operated vehicle, the pipe inspection device from the pipe at the first location; installing the pipe inspection device at a second location on the pipe; detecting, by the magnetometer, magnetic field measurements associated with the wall thickness of the pipe at the second location; and transmitting, by the controller, the magnetic field measurements from the second location to the remote data collection device. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
As to claims 19 - 20, the prior art fails to disclose that the sensor further comprises a coil that receives a power signal from the power source and generates an applied magnetic field, and wherein the magnetic field measurements are response magnetic field measurements generated in response to the applied magnetic field. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Chang (12,435,841) is cited for its disclosure of devices of determining pipes, comprising: a memory unit, configured to store a plurality of pipe names, a plurality of reference pipe outside diameter values and orders of the plurality of pipe names corresponding to the plurality of reference pipe outside diameter values.
Critsinelis et al. (2023/0089102) is cited for its disclosure of a device for monitoring strain of an elongate underwater member. The device comprises a first clamp and a second clamp.
Weischedel (2010/0148766) is cited for its disclosure of devices of determining pipes, to nondestructive magnetic inspection devices for evaluating elongated objects such as wire cables, rods, pipes, and the like, and is concerned more particularly with a magnetic testing method and device for detecting loss in metallic cross section in the objects due to distributed or localized discontinuities on the surface or within the object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REENA AURORA whose telephone number is (571)272-2263. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lee Rodak can be reached at 5712705628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REENA AURORA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights